I will get into this more in my rebuttal, but it is not true to say that I prohibited Dalton from posting links to books. I prohibited him from posting links to order forms for books, while specifically telling him that he is free to post links to actual online copies of books. (In fact, I linked to multiple Holocaust handbooks volumes in the course of this debate.)
As someone who finds themselves in the "I have questions" category regarding the mainstream Holocaust narrative, I'd like to thank both History Speaks and Thomas Dalton for being willing to conduct this discussion.
The past few years have shown to a wide swathe of people, who normally wouldn't be exposed to such lines of thought, that narratives, concerning war (Russia-Ukraine most recently), or other major events (e.g. COVID-19) are extraordinarily malleable. In the present day, the tools to propagate narratives on the actor side, and investigate them on the audience side, have become very complex, and the balance of power between those two aspects is, at least to me, unclear. In the past however, I would argue the capacity for state actors to manipulate narratives exceeded the general populations capacity to cross check them. This of course raises all sorts of questions about our understanding of history (in addition to the old mantra of "whats the provenance"), that can only be addressed through long-form, fair-spirit discussion.
I implore both participants to see this debate through, even if it comes to the point of agreeing to disagree. It is not a matter of ego, but presenting a coherent, well thought out discussion for a wider audience, so that they may make up their own minds. I say most humbly: please reign in any academic elitism, or snide comments. The discussion is more important than pride.
History is a most malleable and plastic thing. It does not have the luxury of being settled (nor does much else, these days). Many narratives, whether one considers them interesting or pernicious, will NOT simply be dealt with once and for all. This topic, and others will have to be discussed again, and again, for future generations who ask similar questions.
Each time, the discussion must be conducted fairly, openly, and with respect for the opposite view, even if the "opponent"'s position might appear repulsive, or stupid. So long as they are prepared to civilly discuss the issue they should be respected. There is simply no other way to address it. Any alternative leads to siloed communities that never communicate, and develop wildly different understandings of history, and in that environment, genuinely fictitious narratives can easily propagate. In short, if fair debate isn't held, it makes the problem worse.
Thank you, both, for simply agreeing to have this debate. It makes a wonderful change from anonymous people on the internet simply shouting at each other, and has already produced some interesting reading. Again - please see it through civilly, not for ego, but to inform.
I am really looking forward to your so called proof of the number of 6 million or any number in the millions.
If the bodies were burned to ash, where is the ash? You cannot burn the teeth, so where are the teeth?
Furthermore, if the Nazis were able to complete this feat. Let's say, gas 6 million Jews in 5-6 years time, it's quite a feat of science and engineering!! Something that we would be hard pressed to replicate.
Frankly, it's something that is expected to be accepted as fact but any lengthy analysis finds the number absurd in the time allotted and in addition provide the proof of bodies. I.e. - here are citations of numbers fine but I want a citation of proof of the bodies beyond it's gospel and anecdotal evidence - which I doubt you can provide - because it's my understanding that most of these places have been made unavailable to exhume. - so even if you can provide a reputable historical source for "numbers" can you provide a reputable historical source for physical bodies.
I will get into this more in my rebuttal, but it is not true to say that I prohibited Dalton from posting links to books. I prohibited him from posting links to order forms for books, while specifically telling him that he is free to post links to actual online copies of books. (In fact, I linked to multiple Holocaust handbooks volumes in the course of this debate.)
Underwhelming response.
Underwhelming comment.
(sorry for the long comment)
As someone who finds themselves in the "I have questions" category regarding the mainstream Holocaust narrative, I'd like to thank both History Speaks and Thomas Dalton for being willing to conduct this discussion.
The past few years have shown to a wide swathe of people, who normally wouldn't be exposed to such lines of thought, that narratives, concerning war (Russia-Ukraine most recently), or other major events (e.g. COVID-19) are extraordinarily malleable. In the present day, the tools to propagate narratives on the actor side, and investigate them on the audience side, have become very complex, and the balance of power between those two aspects is, at least to me, unclear. In the past however, I would argue the capacity for state actors to manipulate narratives exceeded the general populations capacity to cross check them. This of course raises all sorts of questions about our understanding of history (in addition to the old mantra of "whats the provenance"), that can only be addressed through long-form, fair-spirit discussion.
I implore both participants to see this debate through, even if it comes to the point of agreeing to disagree. It is not a matter of ego, but presenting a coherent, well thought out discussion for a wider audience, so that they may make up their own minds. I say most humbly: please reign in any academic elitism, or snide comments. The discussion is more important than pride.
History is a most malleable and plastic thing. It does not have the luxury of being settled (nor does much else, these days). Many narratives, whether one considers them interesting or pernicious, will NOT simply be dealt with once and for all. This topic, and others will have to be discussed again, and again, for future generations who ask similar questions.
Each time, the discussion must be conducted fairly, openly, and with respect for the opposite view, even if the "opponent"'s position might appear repulsive, or stupid. So long as they are prepared to civilly discuss the issue they should be respected. There is simply no other way to address it. Any alternative leads to siloed communities that never communicate, and develop wildly different understandings of history, and in that environment, genuinely fictitious narratives can easily propagate. In short, if fair debate isn't held, it makes the problem worse.
Thank you, both, for simply agreeing to have this debate. It makes a wonderful change from anonymous people on the internet simply shouting at each other, and has already produced some interesting reading. Again - please see it through civilly, not for ego, but to inform.
I am really looking forward to your so called proof of the number of 6 million or any number in the millions.
If the bodies were burned to ash, where is the ash? You cannot burn the teeth, so where are the teeth?
Furthermore, if the Nazis were able to complete this feat. Let's say, gas 6 million Jews in 5-6 years time, it's quite a feat of science and engineering!! Something that we would be hard pressed to replicate.
Frankly, it's something that is expected to be accepted as fact but any lengthy analysis finds the number absurd in the time allotted and in addition provide the proof of bodies. I.e. - here are citations of numbers fine but I want a citation of proof of the bodies beyond it's gospel and anecdotal evidence - which I doubt you can provide - because it's my understanding that most of these places have been made unavailable to exhume. - so even if you can provide a reputable historical source for "numbers" can you provide a reputable historical source for physical bodies.
When I tell any Truth it is not for the sake of Convincing those who do not know it but for the sake of defending those who Do.
William Blake, Public address, Blake's Notebook c. 1810